Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1887-02-26
DRAM SHOPS AT HIGGINsVILLE.

y. y. CatrOn, ESQ, OF Hlg9lnSvllle writes
us as follows:.-'In your issue of the 18th
| inst. you say that Messrs. Fred. Bollwein
| and Patrick Organ, of Higginsville. were
granted dram shop licenses by the county
court, on petitions which are held to be good
under the law until July 4th next. and that
c. c. Catron, r. l.. Berry and others werc IN
Lexington as remonstrants, holding that new
petitions We're necessary. You seem to be
laboring under a misapprehenson of the facts
in the case, which 1 will endeayor to set
forth to the readers of your valuable paper If
you will allow me space. The point made by
| US before the court was, that none of the
| original petitions on file with the court, up
| on which licenses had been granted by the
| old COURT contained the names of majority
| of the tax-paying citizen Of the city of Hig-
| ginsville, hence the renewing of their licenses
| would be perpetuation of violation of
law, as well as an injury or disregard Of the
wishes of majority of the tax paying citl
zens Of our city. Section 5442 of the Revised
Statutes of Missouri, says:-'It shall not be
lawful for any county court in this state, or
clerk thereof in vacation, to grant any license
to keep dram shop In any city containing
less than $500, nor in any Incorporated town
or municipal township, until a majority both
of the assessed tax-paying citizens therein,
and in the block or square in which the dram
shop is to be kept, shall sign petition asking
for such license to keep dranshop therein;
which said petition shall be fl led in the Office
OF the clerk of the county court, and
by said clerk laid before the court
at the first term thereafter, and be
renewed on the 4th. day of July every
year thereafter; and in default of renewing
Of said petition, said court or clerk shall have
no power to issue such license there after, un-
til the same is renewed. Every person vIO-
lating the provisions Of this section shall be
deemed guilty OF misdemeanor, and upon
conviction on indictment, be punished by fine
not less than fifty nor more than five hundred
dollars, for the use of the county school fund,
and all dramshop licenses issued contrary to
the provisions of this section shall be yoid.'
Section 5i3S says that the number of petition
ers must he shown by The last previous as
sessment of The city, &c. We stated to The
court, and also produced the petition of Fred.
BOllWeln showing that he had only 147 sign
ers to his petition, numbers of whom were
| not taxpayers OF the city, and that we had
the tax books and city assessor of the city of
Higginsvllle present to prove that he did not
have the signatures of majority of the tax
| paying citizens to his petition. Hence, ac-
cording to section 5442, his petition was null
and void; and, having no legal petition on
file, the court could not lawfully grant him a
/ license without a new petition. All the other
petitions from this city are IN the same cate
CORY; none of them having a majority of the
taX-paying citizens upon them. All we
want and ask of the court is compliance
| with the law. We are law abiding citizens,
and believe with the founders of this govern
ment, that the wishes OF a majority of the
people should prevail. The old county court
was rather too lose in its enforcement of the
dram shop law. One case as an illustration ::
Some eighteen months ago the court granted
dram shop license to parties in this city on
petition signed by about twenty five per-
sons. My recollection is fifteen. How the
honorable court ever arrived at the con-
clusion that twenty-five or less was majOri-
ty of the resident citizen taxpayers of a city
OF the fourth class, great railroad center
tell. l must confess that cannot account in
any way satisfactory to myself for the action
OF the court in the premises, SO VIII leave
the question with themselves and the people
of the county," We print what Mr.. Catron
has to say with pleasure, bat we dc not see
that the lntelligencer was i'll informed as to
what it said regarding the petitions and the
action of the court. As we understand it,
the court did not go into the questions sug-
gested bv the statement of facts, holding in Ie-
gal parlance.that they were res djud5cdtd, that
Is, already settled by adjudication; that the
proper time to do ,lhis was upon the first pre-
sentation of theopention. not, upon an appll-
cation isess renewal, simpiy.gi A good reason
for this rule viii present,i.se to MI. Catron.
II not enforced, wherever there, is 7vrr position
to saloons and the matter is closer It Wi,
require two trials per year where licenses are
granted, instead of one, which would be OBJ
structiye to the business of the court, and
expensive to the taxpayers. Upon the loose.
ness of the old court rs to licenses we have
no issue with Mr. Catron. Ii such case eX.
listed rs he reports 1t was fragrant violation
Of the spirit of the law, A court in such a
case should take cognizance of notorious
facts. 1t seems TO us that no man should de
sire to do Il business in u town contrary to
the wishes of majority of his fellow ci,j-
IONS. Mr.. Catron's quotation of the law Is
from the Session Acts of 1888, instead of r,
y. of 1879.